Minaben Wd/O Sureshbhai ... vs Rashikbha Nanubhai Bhoya
2021 Latest Caselaw 13998 Guj

       C/CA/722/2020                                ORDER DATED: 14/09/2021




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 722 of 2020

                       In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 33708 of 2019

==========================================================
     MINABEN WD/O SURESHBHAI GANGAJIBHAI GAVIT D/O ANADBHAI
                        HARIBHAI MAHALA
                             Versus
                   RASHIKBHA NANUBHAI BHOYA
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR DEEPAK G ALORIA(6580) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE NOT RECD BACK(63) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA

                                Date : 14/09/2021

                                  ORAL ORDER

Heard learned advocate Mr. Nishit Bhalodi for the applicants and learned advocate Mr. Deepak Aloria for respondent No.2.

1.1 As far as unserved respondent No.1 is concerned, the said respondent is driver, who is stated to be not necessary party for treating the present civil application. Learned advocate for the applicants therefore seeks deletion of the said respondent for the purpose of dealing with this application. As prayed for by him, respondent No.1 is deleted from the array of the respondents.

2. Delay 273 days has taken place in preferring the appeal against judgment and award impugned in the First Appeal.

3. Delay is explained in the application by averring that the applicants consulted the advocate and instructed him to prefer the appeal, arranged

C/CA/722/2020 ORDER DATED: 14/09/2021

the papers as advised by the advocate and the amount towards fee and other legal expenses, in which process time has elapsed leading to delay of 273 days.

4. The reasons put forth in the avermennts of the civil application do not spelt out any indolence on part of the applicants. The time taken in consulting the advocate and in the process of preparation of the appeal by the appellant when not characterised with any deliberate action leading to delay, could be viewed as sufficient case, especially in the facts of the present case.

5. In the above view, sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay of 273 days. Delay is condoned. Civil Application is allowed. Rule is made absolute.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J) C.M. JOSHI